Search for: All records

Genomic data are being produced and archived at a prodigious rate, and current studies could become historical baselines for future global genetic diversity analyses and monitoring programs. However, when we evaluated the potential utility of genomic data from wild and domesticated eukaryote species in the world’s largest genomic data repository, we found that most archived genomic datasets (87%) lacked the spatiotemporal metadata necessary for genetic biodiversity surveillance. Labor-intensive scouring of a subset of published papers yielded geospatial coordinates and collection years for only 39% (51% if place names were considered) of these genomic datasets. Streamlined data input processes, updated metadata deposition policies, and enhanced scientific community awareness are urgently needed to preserve these irreplaceable records of today’s genetic biodiversity and to plug the growing metadata gap. 

Abstract Genetic diversity within species represents a fundamental yet underappreciated level of biodiversity. Because genetic diversity can indicate species resilience to changing climate, its measurement is relevant to many national and global conservation policy targets. Many studies produce large amounts of genome‐scale genetic diversity data for wild populations, but most (87%) do not include the associated spatial and temporal metadata necessary for them to be reused in monitoring programs or for acknowledging the sovereignty of nations or Indigenous peoples. We undertook a distributed datathon to quantify the availability of these missing metadata and to test the hypothesis that their availability decays with time. We also worked to remediate missing metadata by extracting them from associated published papers, online repositories, and direct communication with authors. Starting with 848 candidate genomic data sets (reduced representation and whole genome) from the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration, we determined that 561 contained mostly samples from wild populations. We successfully restored spatiotemporal metadata for 78% of these 561 data sets (n = 440 data sets with data on 45,105 individuals from 762 species in 17 phyla). Examining papers and online repositories was much more fruitful than contacting 351 authors, who replied to our email requests 45% of the time. Overall, 23% of our email queries to authors unearthed useful metadata. The probability of retrieving spatiotemporal metadata declined significantly as age of the data set increased. There was a 13.5% yearly decrease in metadata associated with published papers or online repositories and up to a 22% yearly decrease in metadata that were only available from authors. This rapid decay in metadata availability, mirrored in studies of other types of biological data, should motivate swift updates to data‐sharing policies and researcher practices to ensure that the valuable context provided by metadata is not lost to conservation science forever.